The Real Reason The Economy Is Brokenhttp://www.businessinsider.com/the-real-reason-the-economy-is-broken-2013-2/comments
en-usWed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500Mon, 19 Mar 2018 11:03:53 -0400Chris Martensonhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/512387c9eab8ead11100000dViola PerryTue, 19 Feb 2013 09:10:17 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/512387c9eab8ead11100000d
If not Obama then who, they all are puppets of the real powers who are behind this misery. Obviously, the goal is to destroy the middle class and then comes depopulation, while we argue like children which party is worse. Both parties agree on things that is beneficial to them like the drones, NDAA, Patriot Act, etc. on other subjects they divide them so we will be divided!http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51222cb46bb3f73d6e000001scottindallasMon, 18 Feb 2013 08:29:24 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51222cb46bb3f73d6e000001
that's an interesting point/question. HOW should gov't invest in pushing the tech envelope. Gov't placing bets is always contentious, but a correct bet is a HUGE win and acceleration of tech. I think I agree with you, supporting R&D while leaving actual production to firms. Higher top marginal tax rates, higher capital gains taxes would in fact encourage or stimulate these investments by the private sector--as those are legitimate business expenses and are thus deductible and are thus MORE desirable the HIGHER the tax rate.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51222b9e6bb3f7f06b000003scottindallasMon, 18 Feb 2013 08:24:46 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51222b9e6bb3f7f06b000003
you're right, and raising their taxes won't raise their effective tax rates, but they'll increase their spending to lower their tax exposure. That puts money in hands further down the economic ladder, stimulating the economy. I'm for higher nominal tax rates, I don't care if effective rates rise, I want the tax havens that crop up, those are more productive than letting the rich hoard their money.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51222aedeab8ea070f00001dscottindallasMon, 18 Feb 2013 08:21:49 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51222aedeab8ea070f00001d
the problem you've isolated is speculation of oil, not increased oil production costs. The increased oil speculation is part and parcel of the QE that we've seen. That QE has only trickled down to the banksters, and they've engaged in speculation, and financial devices that are tantamount to gambling, rather than real investment.
To me, the solution is simple, and it's one cause you failed to identify--low cap gains, and low top marginal rates. Low cap gains encourages cap lite production, like the very financialization that has overwhelmed our economy--to the tune of 40% of all economic activity. The fact is that these cap lite producers don't hire anyone, and don't add a dime to GDP.
Rather, capital intensive production is rewarded by higher cap gains, as those capital manufacturing facilities are depreciated and receive tax credits for their annual depreciation. Where an oil speculation folder has no capital behind it, it's just a bet. What you missed is that in 2000, $9 billion was bet on oil futures contracts, by 2007 that figure was $300billion. We have reports from the CFTC (commodities futures trading commission) that speculative bets on oil have raise the price of oil to all time highs. Meanwhile, actual demand is down. Western demand is LOWER than the increase from the East/rest of the world. Global aggregate demand is down, so your argument is flawed. Or, more precisely, misapplied here. I agree with the premises of your argument, but it doesn't pertain.
I dare say, it's the diversion of money to finance rather than into capital intensive production that prevents the QE from stimulating GDP. Invest in markets that add to GDP and GDP grows, but finance doesn't add to GDP, it taxes/takes in a zero sum game. You're left with expensive paper that's of no value to anyone else, you can't sell them like a used widget. So, the financiers, lawyers, and advisers take, they hire no one, or a very few and leave the world with nothing. We hope they make the economy more efficient, but that's all they do.
Raise taxes, capital gains will tax their speculative investments, the liquidation of our capital production facilities. Higher top marginal income tax rates will discourage their highest incomes, encourage reinvestment by firms and entrepreneurial individuals, who can reinvest thereby avoiding tax exposure--a more productive choice than "profit taking."http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5121928c6bb3f7c14c00000ddwalkSun, 17 Feb 2013 21:31:40 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5121928c6bb3f7c14c00000d
H-m-m-m! First term it was all President Bush's fault. Now that Obama has inherited his own economy for his 2nd term it is now EVERY POLITICIAN'S contribution. Will Obama ever become a stand up man and take any responsibility?
I know, I know, that was a silly question.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51211f2a69bedd6364000005Duong NguyenSun, 17 Feb 2013 13:19:22 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51211f2a69bedd6364000005
Lol a "spending" machine, so remind me again which president actually had a positive net gain on the national debt during their term? Oh right none in the last 50 years.. So somehow all those president both Republican and Democrats got a pass from you but now Obama is a "spending" machine and mus the stopped!.. lol.
Facts are facts he turned around the Bush era economic free-fall and basically saved the world economy spin it however you wish. He's got some ideas and the guts to peruse them, can't say the same for the last Republican president.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51210cbdecad04d96100000fnewworldorderSun, 17 Feb 2013 12:00:45 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51210cbdecad04d96100000f
You, Sir, are two bright to comment in such a way. Basic research including the establishment of new and better conjectures and their attached experimental testing programs are not applied research.
The run up until this point indicates in what ways the LHC must be modified and enhanced for possible future discoveries. Modern microprocessors are based on research undertaken bases on conjectures from the 1920s. If we knew what would flow from the LHC it would not be Basic Research. This is a good point to bring up because the Future is completely unknown especially the outflows from new discoveries. It has been such a short period of time, culturally, and many millions, 100s of millions have not even processed the discoveries if the 19th not to mention 20th Centuries. By and large we will be looking more to countries like Korea and China for advancement while we stick with our shopworn rules of thumb and pithy sayings.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5120938369beddce5f000014Printus MaximusSun, 17 Feb 2013 03:23:31 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5120938369beddce5f000014
Yes, I'm expecting commercialization of knowledge obtained by the Large Hadron Collider any day now.
What's that?
It's going to be shut down for two years??
Carry on then.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/512070c3eab8eac946000019BeaumuttSun, 17 Feb 2013 00:55:15 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/512070c3eab8eac946000019
GOSH DANG IT!!!! Suckered again... I see an article about the "real reason the economy is broken" and I read it with great anticipation in hopes of becoming enlightened, But alas, just another wordy diatribe about how meteors hitting Russia is causing hyper de-inflation of OPEC... W. T. F. Where do these characters come from?
Want to know what the real answer is???? My V.P. of Sales and Marketing hit the nail on the head during our quarterly bitch session on why the company has spent unbelievable amounts of money on advertising, marketing and sales promotions, but sales continued to remain stagnant or even decrease. Why?????
Well, exclaimed our VP..."No one out there has the money to buy our products"!! Our customers have cut back, and streamlined operations, and have increased productivity, and done everything right, but their customers don't have any money to buy the products and services made by my customers..
B.I. hits the nail on the head continually with pictures of multi. multi million dollar homes being bought and sold by the super rich.... The problem is that the super rich,,,, who have all the money,,, already own all the products and variations of products that we make. So....We have stagnant sales. Everyone (except the super rich) is broke.... and that, my friends, is the real reason the economy is broken!! Or, maybe it's because we are getting too much oil from ocean drilling operations and all the world's oil is too wet to burn!!??.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51203bd16bb3f74539000001ChridtopherSat, 16 Feb 2013 21:09:21 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51203bd16bb3f74539000001
I didn't need to read the story to know that when you put out more than you take in, it's broken.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51201e99ecad042512000009bdbrSat, 16 Feb 2013 19:04:41 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51201e99ecad042512000009
The figures I found the quickest were on census.gov, but I found yours on the Dept of Commerce site. Odd that the two are so far off!http://www.businessinsider.com/c/512019a669bedd7942000013EARL CARROLLSat, 16 Feb 2013 18:43:34 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/512019a669bedd7942000013
KEEP ON TALKING...EVEN A FOOL SEEMS WISE UNTIL HE OPENS HIS MOUTH....THE REPUBLICANS ARE THE ONES GOING HOME...OBAMA BEAT YOU TWICE....YALL ARE SLOW LEARNERS....2014 WILL END THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS...MOVE TO CANADAhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/51200bf169bedd7e21000010newworldorderSat, 16 Feb 2013 17:45:05 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51200bf169bedd7e21000010
See, now you are angry and lashing out. You are wrong agin and are not a mind reader nor are you anywhere close to the person I am and the things I have done.
This is all personal attacks again simply based on my impertinence in disagreeing with you.
As to 40 years ago if you were current you would understand that there are no answers in the past and the only path to new knowledge is through fresh conjectures. 40 years ago is about the date of the first microprocessor which has changed everything and also the end of the International Gold Standard so there will be no going back to the certainties of yesteryear.
Now let us simply agree to part as people who disagree and you can cling to the Nixon Era or whatever decade seems most comfortable and I will assert that after roughly 500 years of Enlightenment of the sort first associated with the UK we are just on the threshold of exponential progress- really how can it be otherwise. You think we should accept that 1820 to 1970 was it or that we could declare History to be over 40 years ago?
You, Sir, are a Reactionary though you have every right to be so.
The Universe ripples with more energy then we could possibly use and all that is lacking is new knowledge that accesses it. Gasoline output 200 years from now is hardly of any concern.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/512006676bb3f7c654000002Where to start...Sat, 16 Feb 2013 17:21:27 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/512006676bb3f7c654000002
"Please consider that your knowledge base has become dated and is increasingly less relevant."
My physics (and economic) knowledge base are quite current, and I make a point of keeping them so. In my line of work, it's required.
I do consider the fact that you're a miseducated sophist with a large vocabulary but low comprehension of real-world dynamics. The stuff you spout is based on pseudo-scientific twaddle designed to enthrall the typical product of the US educational system. I find your beliefs cultish, and your statements not only absurd, but easily debunked by anyone with a real education and a modicum of intellectual curiosity. In short, it's unsubstantiated social philosophy masquerading as science and economics.
I suggest you go teach public school if you're in need of a job. You'd fit right in. If not, then you're probably a rich sophist like Krugman trying to find some intellectual figleaf to cover for the economic destruction being heaped on the US as a result of 40 years of neo-liberal economic policy.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511ffd44eab8ead84e00001dUbruniSat, 16 Feb 2013 16:42:28 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511ffd44eab8ead84e00001d
Wait, what was your point in all this? That we need to burn more crude oil and our problems will somehow go away? Longest broken window fallacy I've ever read...http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511feb57ecad049c3100000cBenskySat, 16 Feb 2013 15:25:59 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511feb57ecad049c3100000c
Inane article. Looks at two sets of problems, from myriad others not mentioned, and attempts to draw a decisive conclusion. If the author was my chief researcher and analyst, and not writing to persuade the intelligent-weary, I would fire them in a heartbeat.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fe86e69bedda94e000028newworldorderSat, 16 Feb 2013 15:13:34 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fe86e69bedda94e000028
A very valid challenge, Sir! China is hardly an ideal society and, to their credit, most Chinese seem to agree and are working very hard to work around obstacles. Crises and collapses are inevitable and responding to them is the key.
One thing they have done is look at our developmental models since 1947 on the Marxist and Capitalist styles and accepted what seemed to work and rejected what seemed to be bad knowledge or bad philosophy.
We can do the same with their reflections of our past successes and solutions. If we increase the density of our population through clusters with relatively small footprints productivity will soar on the input side. This happened in agriculture when the populations were driven off the land by tech change and into the cities. The improvements in scale, methods and technology sent ag output beyond any idea of the possible and this still continues. You need to see a robot tractor work the fields hour after hour via GPS to really appreciate this. After nearly 100 years we are still losing "farmers." Vertical farming is another enhancement of inputs vs. outputs. The urbanized ag workers were then concentrated usefully by Ford at River Rouge and other plants.
The benefits of consolidation and concentration in cutting the expenditure side of the supply equation have a long way to go.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fe5af6bb3f7d91500000enewworldorderSat, 16 Feb 2013 15:01:51 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fe5af6bb3f7d91500000e
I agree as long as we are always looking at weight moved over a measured distance in terms of gallons consumed. Occasionally we can see someone tanking up pickup with saddle tanks or a motorhome and speculate on how much person such a person is will into take even if they can afford it.
Self driving vehicles alone with no further improvement in fuel consumption will save billions of gallons fuel daily by managing idling, stopping, brainless speeding, pointless passing. Red lights can be minimized too :-). This is where a lot of carrot and a little stick will work very well while development continues. You can check Honda Global for its 3 engine hybrid system.
Sanctioning gratuitous waste is the goal with the price mechanism and the use of black box tech to remove 200 mph cars from the roads and all the retro junk from previous decades. Certainly no vehicles earlier than 1993 should be registered or appear on public roads. $10. gallon may have to be introduced until we win this one on a cultural level.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fe406eab8ea211c00002eJohn VargasSat, 16 Feb 2013 14:54:46 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fe406eab8ea211c00002e
I learned nothing new in this article for it just repeats what I have been saying since 2005 or longer. The economy has hit an energy wall and the political leadership unwilling to call upon the American people for sacrifice because they see it as political suicide.
What we really need is aggressive leadership that will tax fossil fuels, ration fuels, set efficiency standards, and invest in emerging technologies for alternative energy.
I can't change our pathetically inept government, and I can't change myself either, the products that will set America on a new path of efficiency do not exist thanks to subsidies, bailouts, and downright corruption that keep obsolete industries spewing out the same wasteful junk.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fe2ef6bb3f79d1300001dnewworldorderSat, 16 Feb 2013 14:50:07 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fe2ef6bb3f79d1300001d
I could not agree more and this is a real challenge to the continuation of Democracy or its extension. Look at people like Sen. Cruz or elected representatives so senior that they are barely coherent.
The problem is cultural. Like Cuba we moved into decline for decades after the 1950s and 60s. We can hardly hope to progress when the schools are fulled with "teachers" proclaiming the technical and spiritual end times.
We can look at the Singapore Model or the matter in which China has achieved growth at rates not thought possible until it was and is being done.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fe14369beddca43000001newworldorderSat, 16 Feb 2013 14:42:59 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fe14369beddca43000001
Please consider that your knowledge base has become dated and is increasingly less relevant.
You do not know me though I can assure you that my interests are more current than your own and I am not a consumer of fiction in any form.
A slight glance around our own Solar System indicates that planets or their moons can contain entire atmospheres of long chain hydrocarbons produced entirely by abiotic means including massive lakes of liquid hydrocarbons.
These are not accessible to us but do show that vast amounts of hydrocarbons in industrially useful forms without the intervention of life forms. Further it is clear that Earth itself produces enormous heat via tectonic motion, convection within the mantle, gravity compression and the decay of radioactive elements in the core. We even understand in recent years that life does not require Sunlight and can continue indefinitely near thermal heat sources such as heat vents on the sea floors.
You also abusively claim the Laws of Physics to support your personal views but at one point every thing was known to be composed of Earth, Air, Fire and Water and this was cited for centuries as the best possible form of justification.
As late as 1900 a great physicist like Mach proclaimed that atoms themselves were simply myths as they could not be seen. Albert Michaelson and many other "great physicists" proclaimed that Physics was nearly over as to substantive new discovery in the same era. Isaac Newton was proclaimed to have settled matters nearly entirely and those who have proclaimed limits to knowledge are always shown to be wrong aren't they?
No one knows what discoveries will be made in the Arctic regions and other unexplored areas in places as wild as California where only local ignorance and backwardness prevents energy independence for that state.
Naturally there is an expenditure of energy whenever any conversion takes place such as the compression associated with producing LNG or transporting it to markets but this is the matter of converting something from a less desired form to a more desired form for reasons of value enhancement.
You have noted that I have not denied that certain carbon deposits are derived from life forms but not all. Even with decades in industry and misleading your students it must be at least somewhat enlightening to see the US move to energy surplus status while huge new discoveries are steadily reported year after year all over the Earth.
You are also very dated in your comprehension of fiat money systems and why they have also been developed along with other aspects of the Scientific Revolution. Globalization is intended to cause a convergence in living standards among developing economies. Our mature industries are being passed along where we have not been sufficiently innovative to keep them as part of Development Programs. This is the Policy and none of this is secret other than to those who refuse to continue to learn. It may surprise you to learn that commodity prices are not the most important consideration in setting the volumes of new currency issuance.
Simply because you might not understand something doesn't mean it is incomprehensible. Look at Dr. Paul or Senator Warren- they seem to understand almost nothing in 2012 and look how far they have gotten.
Fewer and fewer people will be employed as a % of the 18 and up population because they are simply redundant in the emerging era and US consumption standards in terms of 1000s of pounds of pork or gasoline will decline. This is good. It may mean that 2.5 billion other people have enough to eat and drink. In my opinion it is an avoidable error to assume that since we personally age and die that this must mean the World hovers on collapse. This is the foundation of your idiosyncratic views.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fdd45eab8eaeb11000001hstad6Sat, 16 Feb 2013 14:25:57 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fdd45eab8eaeb11000001
".... but maybe even more importantly there are far too many manufacturers producing the same goods...." - not sure I buy that premise. But if I did - so what? More manufacturing creates more competition - resulting in better products - which are cheaper and the cycle starts all over again. But your initial premise is wrong - please refer to two examples the U.S. and Germany - each produce distinctive goods for export that are not produced by other countries. Now don't get me wrong in 20 - 40 years other countries will catch up, but both the U.S. and Germany will not be standing still and will produce other better products - that is the cycle.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fdbbf6bb3f72b04000004hstad6Sat, 16 Feb 2013 14:19:27 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fdbbf6bb3f72b04000004
Maybe! But you neglected to mention technological progress of better MPG! Just review history on this point - 1973 average MPG in the low teens - 2013 average MPG in the mid '20s. Unless you think the we've hit the wall on MPG growth then this becomes a none issue. The growth of oil/energy usage will not happen in the U.S., but in the developed regions of the world.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fdaaf6bb3f72304000003hstad6Sat, 16 Feb 2013 14:14:55 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fdaaf6bb3f72304000003
I agree about 'transformation and restructuring' - that has occurred since the beginning and will continue into the future - that's why Capitalism is called 'Creative Destruction'. I disagree with your comments about China - they will hit a ceiling of growth largely because they will try to emulate the Japanese model after WW2. With the size of their population and the lack of infrastructure - especially education, that will be real difficult to accomplish for a country of 1.3 billion that has its own demographic problems.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fd976ecad043315000006Gary AndersonSat, 16 Feb 2013 14:09:42 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fd976ecad043315000006
Proof is taking away the futures markets in oil. Even Wiki says the oil markets are cornered. It is common knowledge. If one man can corner the cocoa market, the banksters can, and do corner the oil markets.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fd6d0eab8ea347e000012DMGSat, 16 Feb 2013 13:58:24 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fd6d0eab8ea347e000012
The demand for oil is directly linked to economic activity in couple of ways. As economic activity increases around the world (notably in places like China who must have substantial growth to keep their economy from imploding) oil demands increase for factories and their labor forces as they need (and want) increased transportation. In addition, as the economy improves people become more prosperous and so have more money for increased mobility (vacations, shopping, business trips) and the oil this travel is dependent on. Thus the Catch-22 or whack-a-mole I referred to. I'm not a big believer in the 'we've always found solutions before' school of thought because it implies that the 'solutions' can be found in a way that don't require substantial changes to the structure that got us into this crisis in the first place. Solutions WILL be found or they will be thrust upon us but I'm guessing they won't be as painless as your comment implies.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fd4ffecad04490a00000ahstad6Sat, 16 Feb 2013 13:50:39 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fd4ffecad04490a00000a
You left out one critical component for our citizens to prosper - we need GOOD LEADERS to set national goals and provide us inspiration - not like the ones we have now - who campaign 24/7 - even after the elections have decided everything.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fd3e169bedd5d1f000010hstad6Sat, 16 Feb 2013 13:45:53 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fd3e169bedd5d1f000010
I agree with your comments - but your numbers are off by quite a lot! Correction is as follows:
<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/u-exports-reach-186-4-billion-december-rise-050240508.html;_ylt=AwrNUbGg0x9RhT0AjxjQtDMD" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >http://news.yahoo.com/u-exports-reach-186-4-billion-december-rise-050240508.html;_ylt=AwrNUbGg0x9RhT0AjxjQtDMD</a>http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fd33c69bedd4c17000021hstad6Sat, 16 Feb 2013 13:43:08 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fd33c69bedd4c17000021
Great thinking can be useful - but in your case it's conspiracy theory 101! Speculation is half the price of oil - really - give us the evidence or facts on this theory. Nothing to do with demand from China or India the 2 most populous countries in the world. Gary if you are pushing one theory all the time we might as well call you the 'Conspiracy Guy'! Just like John1066 is the 'Grandma's Cat Food Guy'!http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fd2e3ecad047f0100000eWhere to start...Sat, 16 Feb 2013 13:41:39 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fd2e3ecad047f0100000e
Your posts make about as much sense as inflationary monetary policy into the teeth of a worldwide commoditiy pinch. I am a petroleum engineer with decades of educational and work experience in practical science.
You've read one too many sci-prog fairy tales.
Carbon, Hydrogen, and Oxygen are EXTREMELY abundant. Problem is, it takes a good deal of energy to bond them into long-chain hydrocarbons usable as a fuel source. There is NO mechanical or chemical process to convert them into such that will net positive energy. Simple enthalpy of formation equations tell us so.
So what are we doing when we burn oil or coal? We're using up hundreds of millions of years of stored solar energy stockpiled by the most efficient solar collection device imaginable - the earth's biosphere.
Not to say that there may not be transformational technologies available for producing electricity down the road - but near term (as what's left of our lifetimes), hydrocarbons are what we have to work with as a primary fuel - and our ability to produce/extract them has economic (if not in fact physical) limitations - especially in the near-term. The laws of physics won't change to suit us. We'll have to adapt - and that's going to cause decades of economic dislocations as we are forced to wean ourselves off of cheap oil.
There will always be opportunity out there for truly exceptional people, but this is simply not going to be a pleasant period for the median US consumer/worker whose per-capita consumption of oil MUST come down as more cost-competitive economies buy up what's left of the low-hanging fruit in terms of hydrocarbon resources - the production of which, in fact, already peaked in per-capita terms over a decade ago.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fd24c6bb3f76471000062specularSat, 16 Feb 2013 13:39:08 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fd24c6bb3f76471000062
To me, the author is focused on the wrong end of the horse (or at the least not considering both ends).
All the central bank pumping is not working because the world is not only producing durable goods that last at least twice as long - but maybe even more importantly there are far too many manufacturers producing the same goods. This problem will now be exacerbated by the economic pressures on Europe and Japan, where they need to export more goods to boast both jobs and tax revenue. Global competition - via currency manipulation and trade protection to regional companies - is going to turn ruthless. The natives - especially in Europe are growing very restless. And don't expect China (or other developing nations) to ease up on their export goals.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fd23d69bedd5e1c000024hstad6Sat, 16 Feb 2013 13:38:53 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fd23d69bedd5e1c000024
Reading comprehension must not be your strong suit? He was replying to the other commentator he said that - Einstein!http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fd17cecad046803000018hstad6Sat, 16 Feb 2013 13:35:40 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fd17cecad046803000018
I'm sorry that in your world only one aspect makes sense to you! But I for one am quite tired of this silly game. EVERY POLITICIAN HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THIS MESS! If you believe otherwise, then I feel sorry for your tormented mind!http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fcfe869bedde213000020KCRobSat, 16 Feb 2013 13:28:56 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fcfe869bedde213000020
Exactly. I don't think our leaders recognize the "end of work" as a possibility (or, if they do, they're not saying anything). The holy grail has always been increases of productivity. These increases have been mostly beneficial (we spend far less of our income, as a percentage, on survival than we used to). But productivity is a double-edged sword as it does render people and industries redundant.
Creative destruction is part of the process but in the past, new industries and occupations were built. Now the biggest industries seem to be those that specifically eliminate labor (capital intensive v labor intensive) or internet startups with usefulness that's not obvious to most people (at least not enough that one would actually pay for it).
The process won't stop so we'd better start figuring out what to do about it (and, hint, remedies do not include importing millions more workers nor is increasing the burdens of business a remedy when the burdens serve only to provide an incentive for automation and/or offshoring).http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fceb26bb3f7066b00001fnewworldorderSat, 16 Feb 2013 13:23:46 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fceb26bb3f7066b00001f
GREAT! China has averaged about 10% growth for 32 years.
Increasing urbanization and forms of industrial clustering can radically reduce resource use and cut infrastructure costs.
We are at the beginning of transformation and restructuring not the end.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fcda4eab8ea846700001cnewworldorderSat, 16 Feb 2013 13:19:16 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fcda4eab8ea846700001c
Productivity means that for every unit of output fewer units of input are required so for every 1000 miles of transport fewer units of energy are consumed. Plus the USA can export fuels we do not consume in our markets here abroad for earnings. This is actually good news. Having fuel prices so high people have to set a priority before they fire up the SUV for a little joy riding is GOOD NEWS. 100.00 for a 20 gallon fill up will be a needed moment of sobriety.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fc97f69bedddc0800000cnewworldorderSat, 16 Feb 2013 13:01:35 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fc97f69bedddc0800000c
This is a good posting. Our problem is we have attempted to STAY in the period 1941-1961 and in this we have succeeded. Our population as a whole is likely not a lot more ignorant or intoxicated or impoverished than they were in 1940 but we have not continued to improve. Countries like Japan in the late 1800s accepted that they were backward and resolved to catch up and did so. The same is true of China today casting off defeated Marxism. These are cultural problems at root and this is where, if we can reform the rest will be easy.
Until the we have the H-1B program so we can recruit 21st Century skill and value systems.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fc95aeab8ea175e00001drjb_bostonSat, 16 Feb 2013 13:00:58 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fc95aeab8ea175e00001d
not sure i buy the oil correlation with GDP growth story. may have been the case for the past when the US and Eur were in industrialization phase like China and India are today. we are more evolved economies and reliance on oil declines as the focus on innovation and environmentally friendly technologies increase. its never one indicator or another that tells the whole story. hence economics is a witches brew.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fc7fb6bb3f7065e00000cJohn WilkinsSat, 16 Feb 2013 12:55:07 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fc7fb6bb3f7065e00000c
The Fed's balance sheet is not in the "real economy". It is in reserves, which is nothing more than a giant spread sheet with electronic numbers on it. It has nothing to do with inflation or money to spent on goods a& services. banks cannot withdraw excess reserves. They can only lend them to other banks. banks cannot lend or send reserves to you or I or firms. There are many graphs floating around that show there is nor correlation between the monetary base and real spendable money.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fc7f969beddd10500000fTom FioreSat, 16 Feb 2013 12:55:05 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fc7f969beddd10500000f
I guess that I'm more of a believer in Capitalism and the market then this guy, but isn't this more of a short term issue? Isn't the market economy more of a self correcting system? The price of oil has gone up due to higher costs and new consumers. People are going to respond to this my minimizing consumption. First it will involve driving less. Next we will see people buying cars will better gas mileage. After that we see technology that will improve gas mileage ever further. People will also move to areas with better access to mass transit and where they can walk instead of drive.
As far as how long a transition will take, the author is using paradigm changes from the past and extrapolating them into the present and future. Prior to how China has actually done it would anyone have believed how quickly they could develop their economy? Now we have impediments, mostly the corruption of the government by the wealthy and powerful and substantial existing infrastructure, that slow our transition, but we also have a free system where those who find solutions first will thrive.
Yeah, we have big problems, but we have seen worse and come out on top. We will again this time.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fc6e6eab8ea395b000023newworldorderSat, 16 Feb 2013 12:50:30 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fc6e6eab8ea395b000023
Problems and crises are inevitable and there is no way to avoid them. Today's problems are caused by the solutions to yesteryear's problems and with the passage of time and changing conditions they have inevitably failed.
New solutions resolve current problems and there are no answers in the past.
Familiarize yourself with the development projects taking place globally where massive investments in infrastructure are taking place.
Our People have to admit their backwardness in every area especially their shameful illiteracy and resolve to catch up. If China can give up Marxism the USA can give up the nostalgia for the last few centuries.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fc51cecad04c76e000002Gary AndersonSat, 16 Feb 2013 12:42:52 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fc51cecad04c76e000002
Yeah but as these workers are being pushed to the side, the price of oil keeps going up. It is a con, a scam, and you stop futures speculationg and oil prices would be cut in half. This is all a con.
BI refuses to see that the oil market is cornered.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fc4f069bedd237700004ebdbrSat, 16 Feb 2013 12:42:08 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fc4f069bedd237700004e
"we can't do that because we have nothing to trade on world markets that people want"
Who is "we"? The US? The US is the world's largest exporter. Our $1.5 billion of exports in 2012 is nearly twice what it was ten years earlier. It's not all rosy - we still have trade deficits and other countries are catching up to us - but to say we "have nothing to trade" is horribly inaccurate.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fc4d06bb3f7995500002fnewworldorderSat, 16 Feb 2013 12:41:36 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fc4d06bb3f7995500002f
Productivity is increasing outputs with fewer inputs of all kinds. With your outlook you will be unemployed unless you are a high schol teacher and will not need to drive saving a good portion of your energy consumption.
The Scientific and Technical Revolutions just began getting traction after 1820 so we are barely at the beginning with 100,000s of years of development ahead of us.
Hydrogen, Carbon and Oxygen are abundant on Earth and are no limitation on energy budgets. Robot transport will save billions of gallons of hydrocarbons daily here in the USA.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fc148ecad046566000009newworldorderSat, 16 Feb 2013 12:26:32 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fc148ecad046566000009
Thanks, good and realistic post.
Any job that involves pattern recognition like Radiology can be programmed immediately and this is well under way. Most people will not see marketable labor as a large component of their lives.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fc0f669bedd3f74000006SomchaiSat, 16 Feb 2013 12:25:10 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fc0f669bedd3f74000006
Actually, Chris is a pretty sensible guy. I recommend his "Crash Course" video series to anyone that hasn't seen it already.
<a href="http://www.peakprosperity.com/crashcourse" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >http://www.peakprosperity.com/crashcourse</a>http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fc0e4eab8ea0b5100000ebdbrSat, 16 Feb 2013 12:24:52 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fc0e4eab8ea0b5100000e
"OMG tell that to the people that are on unemployment or have run out of unemployment benefits"
He wasn't 'telling' anyone anything. He was questioning will-co's position..hence the question mark at the end.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fbfaaecad041164000003NewspeakSat, 16 Feb 2013 12:19:38 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fbfaaecad041164000003
The real reason for our crisis? Oil? It plays a small part, but it isn't the whole picture. The whole picture consists of trust. The people do not trust their government, their media, nor the large corporations that assist in making draco laws to keep the people "Penned up."
The truth is the largest employers are the small businesses. They are the ones who try to improve their communities. They are the true innovators. However, these large corporations have taken over, leading to less growth, because there is a need to line their own pockets.
1) Revolving doors (no one goes to jail for fraud)
2) Sending manufacturing overseas for slave labor
3) The WARS that are ongoing with NO REAL WINNERS except the defense contractors
If we want to have real growth, give the small businesses a break, stop suing people like a bunch of idiots, send the people to prison who have completely wronged the nation, and stop the corruption... because lies become bigger lies, and pretty soon that foundation turns into sand, and the castle falls. Only truth and integrity hold up forever. Lies always become known, and pretty soon, people lose respect and stop believing in anything that is coming out of the main stream media or the government.
Our country was founded on great ideals. Hopefully, it comes back.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fbf35eab8eac449000028bdbrSat, 16 Feb 2013 12:17:41 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fbf35eab8eac449000028
"Let’s all stand up for this cut in spending and tell Obama to go home."
He was just elected a few months ago and sworn in a few weeks ago. Now you want to "tell him to go home"? Well, be my guest. Tell us how that works out.
Does being "a long time writer for The Tea Party" absolve you of the need to make sense? No wonder your side lost the election.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fbd2469beddf668000018DMGSat, 16 Feb 2013 12:08:52 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fbd2469beddf668000018
I entirely agree with the premise of the article. The energy issue is just like a game of whack-a-mole...every time the economy tries to stick its head out of a hole oil prices rise due the demand increased economic activity creates and slams the economy back down again. As for debt, it isn't just debt but the reason FOR the debt. The 'global war on terror', a severe imbalance of consumption and production and DEMOGRAPHICS resulting in ongoing and growing demand for entitlements...most notably healthcare. This is not the kind of debt that serves as an investment in the future. It is debt that throws money and the production it represents (or could represent) down a sinkhole. If this were just a math problem the answers would be relatively simple and straight forward. Stop the stupid, counterproductive wars, increase productivity and lower consumption and moderate entitlements. The problem is that there are powerful constituencies for each of these classes of spending. A dictator could step in solve our problem in a decade...of course in the process (in all likelihood) creating much more severe problems. It's left to the future to discover how (or even whether) a democracy or 'representative' republic does it.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fbb1669bedd9b5d000039ProftelSat, 16 Feb 2013 12:00:06 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fbb1669bedd9b5d000039
The math is simple:
Dollars (U.S.) in excess, gold falls.
Who has dollar buys gold and get rid of the paper.
I want to see who will get the monkey.
A guy I met two years ago here in Annapolis-GO (Brazil) commanded reforms properties in NY, worked for two or three homeowners Jews.
Today he is unemployed, he returned to Brazil, said employers have sold everything they had in the U.S. and applied (valuing five times) equity in South America
It is not difficult to understand. An apartment in NY equates to a 5-storey building with ten apartments generating much rent (in hard currency).
I follow regularly BissnesInsider and frankly do not understand why two or five people need a castle with "two hundred" rooms to live. The expense is insane!
Insane is also spending on health in the U.S., see here many Europeans buying health plans. Yesterday a clinic where he had surgery on his right shoulder, there was also a Canadian hospital treating the right knee, he was with a Mac notebook and browsing 3G connection.
Another thing that I did not enter the head is the guy to have a boat. My grandfather and my uncle on his mother's had shipyards, boats manufactured fiber and wood, renovating yachts. I know of what I speak. :-)http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fb793eab8ead03a00000fSkeptic ObserverSat, 16 Feb 2013 11:45:07 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fb793eab8ead03a00000f
My children, have no fear - Ben the Bernank has helicopters standing by - he will shower this great nation with $100 bills and everything will be peachy - go borrow and buy assets - you will become rich beyond your wildest dreams and we will live happily ever after. May Peace be with you.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fb50469bedd0350000020R & DSat, 16 Feb 2013 11:34:12 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fb50469bedd0350000020
Pretty sure that poster meant 'Research and Development'.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fb3746bb3f7573700000eSpot OnSat, 16 Feb 2013 11:27:32 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fb3746bb3f7573700000e
Best article to hit BI in at least a year.
The Fed can't print oil, corn, beef, or steel. And the Chinese can use the surplus from their favorable trade balance to buy those things out from under us on the world market. This is what peak oil looks like. Back to zero-sum economics. Fed easing in this environment is just accelerating our downfall.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fb18eeab8eae732000005RollerDSat, 16 Feb 2013 11:19:26 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fb18eeab8eae732000005
What a windbag, blahblahblah. The economy is "broken" because too few people have too much wealth.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511faef4ecad047b3f000019ProftelSat, 16 Feb 2013 11:08:20 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511faef4ecad047b3f000019
A conta é simples:
U$D em excesso, ouro cai, quem é esperto compra e se livra de U$D.
O FED está cavando a própria sepultura já a algum tempo... .
:-/http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fa652eab8eac31700000bMelanie BathoSat, 16 Feb 2013 10:31:30 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fa652eab8eac31700000b
The real reason is that people don't have enough sex in their lives! They should subscribe for free on <a href="http://www.planculnow.com/en_GB" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >http://www.planculnow.com/en_GB</a> and get xrated moments starting tonight.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fa61aeab8eaba17000003sharonsjSat, 16 Feb 2013 10:30:34 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fa61aeab8eaba17000003
I am not an Ivy League Economist and I say Chris doesn't get it. First, most economists say the stimulus wasn't big enough and too much of it was tax cuts. Secondly, prices are rising in part because of commodity speculation. And price inflation for everything from food to electricity shot up after the 2008 collapse; the government can claim any numbers it wants but they aren't true. Also, all the money infused into the financial system has not reached Main Street.
The places where Chris is correct are: the economy hasn't turned the corner, gasoline consumption has steadily decreased, and the Fed's actions have nothing to do with creating jobs.
As a Pennsylvania resident, one of our problems is our current governor who refuses to tax the fracking industry. We need that money for infrastructure and other things. And because of his inaction, my property and school taxes went up 20%--one more reason you don't see increased consumerism.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fa472eab8ea551500000cPapaSwampSat, 16 Feb 2013 10:23:30 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fa472eab8ea551500000c
Interesting I didn't realize we lived in a monarchy...congress passes spending and tax bills...presidents just sign or veto. Wo controlled congress during Reagan? Dd regan et al sign the bills? Yes they are complicit. But then Sen Obama also voted for the massive spending increases. Want to blame a president? Clinton killed off Glass-Stegal and lead the implementation of NAFTA and MFN China....probably the largest manufacturing job killing moves in history. It comes down to BOTH parties got us here...to say any different is to be a party monkey.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fa2a1eab8eafa0f00002dRollerDSat, 16 Feb 2013 10:15:45 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fa2a1eab8eafa0f00002d
You are too stupid to even respond to.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fa141ecad04ec29000012MIke MatheaSat, 16 Feb 2013 10:09:53 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511fa141ecad04ec29000012
Your statement might have value if you are referring to investing in R and D not in the manufacture of not fossil fuels. Obama has wasted Billions on manufacturing bad and inefficient technologies. The future is in alternate fuels but the scalable technologies are not yet developed.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511f9e10eab8ea8108000003d edwardsSat, 16 Feb 2013 09:56:16 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511f9e10eab8ea8108000003
Yeah, he inherited the worst economy in history-from himself (2nd term).http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511f988e69bedd6413000006QE4Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:32:46 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511f988e69bedd6413000006
As an Ivy League trained Economist, I have to say your article Chris Martenson is a prime demonstration of SOMEONE WHO FINALLY GETS IT!!!!! This is exactly why the economy is sputtering, structural unemployment shifts and the Central Banks solution is pumping trillions of created money in the system which does nothing to fix it.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511f973a69bedd5210000006AndyBSat, 16 Feb 2013 09:27:06 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511f973a69bedd5210000006
You obviously haven't figured out that the R and D distinction is false; they are all psychopaths working for vested interests and certainly not for the American people. What is infinitely worse is that while you are focussed on misguided partisanship, your freedom is being incrementally usurped.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511f93e4ecad04f40f000015soylowellSat, 16 Feb 2013 09:12:52 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511f93e4ecad04f40f000015
Nations are first and foremost citizen producers. For a few decades after the second world war the US produced the most educated citizens in the world and provided them with the best tools/factories available. Since our average citizen was better (in terms of human capital) than those from Europe or Asia our average citizen saw their income rise for over three decades.
The average citizen produced by America in 2013 is not competitive with those from Europe and Asia. Many are functionally illiterate and the prevalence of Type II diabetes and other ailments makes them quite expensive to the state or their employer. China, India and the developed world are producing citizens of ever increasing quality. If China ever does to our Engineers what they did to our unskilled factory workers, then this country will see a dramatic fall in our standard of living.
Our problems are very much structural in nature. America no longer produces competitive median citizens.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511f93c469bedd1e08000008just.a.guySat, 16 Feb 2013 09:12:20 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511f93c469bedd1e08000008
Moreover, the number of times a central bank that has tried debt monetization (aka "quantitative easing") and ever actually unwound their positions or slowed their monetization rate -- is precisely ZERO. All debt monetization efforts have ended the same way throughout history, with complete destruction of the currency involved.
Yet somehow we believe it will be different this time. That the Fed can unwind and back out "when things get better", which they won't as long as they themselves keep making them worse, and digging themselves deeper and deeper into a hole from which escape is politically impossible.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511f937ceab8ea996e00001eJust SayingSat, 16 Feb 2013 09:11:08 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511f937ceab8ea996e00001e
"The real reason that Walmart's sales are tanking is not that their customers are out of money, it's that they are too afraid to buy stuff? "
OMG tell that to the people that are on unemployment or have run out of unemployment benefits ...... really are you serious "they are too afraid to buy stuff" hey maybe they are broke. The feds is in the process of inflating assets, what do you think that does to the poor, just the opposite hmmmmmmm.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511f8d17ecad04cc04000012albertdeweySat, 16 Feb 2013 08:43:51 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511f8d17ecad04cc04000012
People lose sight of what inflation is and how it plays out in the real world. The reality of economics is that no matter how you slice it, you cannot expand the money supply without prices somewhere increasing as a result. This is an absolute certainty. Many of those actively endorsing QE, and money printing in general, point to the fact that the price of consumer goods haven't been increasing at high inflationary levels as justification for current monetary policy with claims that somehow this time is different and we are handling things responsibly and all is good.
All this means is that we need to look elsewhere for where prices are increasing instead. For this you only have to look to Wall Street to find your answer. Remember that by definition, inflation is ANYTHING that increases in price, no matter what it is. In this case I will point to the stock market going up and the trillions of dollars that are steadily being sucked into that vortex instead of the street level economy of day to day commerce.
When stocks go up, this is a result of inflation at work, nothing else. Stocks are in high demand right now for the simple reason that the world has a massive glut of investment capital available and essentially no where else to stash it other than perhaps under a mattress. The world's investment community seems largely put off by the notion of initiating any form of start up (such as new building factories and actually putting people to work) that might result in increased real productivity, in favor of riding the wave of increasing demand for paper assets that, in reality, do nothing to increase productivity or put people to work. (note: I didn't say ALL the investment community, just the majority - yes there are factories being built but not commensurate with the amount of capital that is available to build them)
The problem that they WILL face is that anytime that you have increasing prices for something that go beyond the true absolute value for that something, especially when the prices for that asset are being driven by an expanding money supply, you are experiencing a bubble. It doesn't matter if this is for Tulips or shares of Apple, when the inflationary forces of monetary expansion are being expressed in higher prices for these objects of lust, this is still inflation at work, no matter how you slice it.
Eventually, this bubble too will pop and the effects will once again rip through the economy at both the Wall Street level and the Main Street level. We go through this over and over for the simple reason that this time is NOT different. Just fresh new faces playing the same old fools game where there are no winners.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511f88fbeab8eab24e000059Political ParalysisSat, 16 Feb 2013 08:26:19 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511f88fbeab8eab24e000059
The Fed does its thing because that is all it can do. There is no political agreement on oil or even acknowledgement of the problem. Peak oil types are considered crack pots. Even feeble attempts to mitigate the problem like electric cars and ethanol are fiercely attacked because they do not measure up to the performance of oil.
No substitute for oil is going to be better than oil or else we would have been using it all along. The problem with oil is that it can no longer be easily/cheaply increased and alternatives are not as good or cheap. But the public and politicians refuse to believe it, let alone do much about it.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511f88bbeab8eab34e000058jameswvuSat, 16 Feb 2013 08:25:15 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511f88bbeab8eab34e000058
We are going through a structural change in employment. Automation and technology have changed everything. US mail is now being stopped on Saturday, factories will soon mostly be all robotic, cab drivers will soon be replaced by Google's autodriver, Amazon's automated warehouse's will soon be implemented everywhere, drones replacing some of the police force, the list goes on. The bottom line there will be an oversupply of blue collar workers. This will be the first wave of technology, the second will be the displacement of white collar type jobs, for instance by the time Apple's Siri gets to its 20th or 30th generation, it will replace most call center worker's. We just will not need that many workers in the future.
I feel the US is in much better shape than the asian countries with an oversupply of people, especially bluecollar workers.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511f843269bedda85b00001eDownhill from hereSat, 16 Feb 2013 08:05:54 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511f843269bedda85b00001e
So the real reason the economy is broken is that we all have bad attitudes? The only thing between us and 4% growth is positive thinking? Fear mongering has kept people unemployed? The real reason that Walmart's sales are tanking is not that their customers are out of money, it's that they are too afraid to buy stuff?
I'll stop the mocking and bring up the real danger in your viewpoint. Authoritarian regimes and dictators control media because they know if they can control the messages people see they can control how people view the world (i.e. propaganda). They know that reality and perception of reality are two different things. Your statement suggests that you believe perception of reality can change reality .... which of course has never been the case.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511f82f2ecad047d72000001barbacoaSat, 16 Feb 2013 08:00:34 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511f82f2ecad047d72000001
Did you read the article? Or did you read it and not understand it?
Hint: "Our only hope for an alternative would be to immediately cut our losses in those enterprises that do not make sense in a world of increasingly expensive liquid fuels, and invest heavily in those things that will help us transition to a future without fossil fuels."http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511f7c146bb3f7e252000007will-coSat, 16 Feb 2013 07:31:16 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511f7c146bb3f7e252000007
Maybe if Chris and his ilk (like, say, the House Republicans) would stop purposefully hyperventilating over every piece of negative economic news and questioning or ignoring all the good news, if they did that then maybe the slow recovery will quicken.
By the way, nice hatchet job, guys. Good thing you have those private islands, because you are going to need a big moat when it occurs to people how much your fear-mongering is to blame for the weak economy that has kept them unemployed. And eventually, they will. They are not as dumb as you think they are.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511f7679ecad049e54000041crusader70Sat, 16 Feb 2013 07:07:21 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511f7679ecad049e54000041
American profligacy started with Reagan (and continued under GWB), not with Obama. He's just the one stuck trying to deal with the mess, but it's far too late.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511f6be16bb3f7a732000035jimmytravisSat, 16 Feb 2013 06:22:09 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511f6be16bb3f7a732000035
Remember the biological definition of a shark? A shark is an eating machine; it does nothing else. It doesn’t even sleep. It eats and makes baby sharks. That’s it. Now, Obama is a spending machine; he does nothing else. He doesn’t sleep. He spends and makes baby Obamas. As Nancy Pelosi says repeatedly we don’t have a spending problem…we enjoy it. You know in a way they could be correct. Maybe they don’t have a spending problem; they are very good at it. Maybe, they have a taxation problem. As a long time writer for The Tea Party, I propose that we concede the point and cut their funding in half in this current negotiation. With half the tax revenue politicians will be forced to run the federal government on a part-time basis. By July 4th the budgeted moneys will have run out and we can all go to the beach. Hurray! This will add more meaning to the term “Independence Day.” Listen to this song on YouTube. It’s The Star Spangled Banner. Let’s all stand up for this cut in spending and tell Obama to go home.